40k 7th Edition release 24th may - All info in 1st post, psychic power cards added (5/21)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sennacherib**

I for one am looking forward to seeing what the new rules bring.
Hopefully some of the rumors about the return of Melee are true. Wouldn't mind seeing mech get a bit of a buff since mech got nerfed pretty hard in the last edition.

The psychic phase…. well. Hopefully things don't go the way of fantasy and it just becomes a game of psyker on psyker and rolling ridiculous amounts of dice.

**ClockworkZion**

sennacherib wrote:
I for one am looking forward to seeing what the new rules bring.
Hopefully some of the rumors about the return of Melee are true. Wouldn't mind seeing mech get a bit of a buff since mech got nerfed pretty hard in the last edition.

The psychic phase…. well. Hopefully things don't go the way of fantasy and it just becomes a game of psyker on psyker and rolling ridiculous amounts of dice.

D6+total combined Mastery Levels of all psykers from what the WD is saying worth of dice. That's more consistent than 8th edition Fantasy, but more random than 7th edition Fantasy.

Oh! I just had a speculative thought regarding Adamantium Will: free Deny the Witch die per unit with the rule. Either that or they'll each add +1 to your Deny the Witch rolls.

I'm just throwing out ideas, but it would go a long way for Sisters and Templars if either is true.

**portugus**

I would say +1 to deny the witch or I'm going to have a lot of vehicles with relic armor for adamantium will. (3pts a tank). Maybe they will FAQ it to add to the difficulty or something.

**ClockworkZion**

portugus wrote:
I would say +1 to deny the witch or I'm going to have a lot of vehicles with relic armor for adamantium will. (3pts a tank). Maybe they will FAQ it to add to the difficulty or something.

A flat +1 for all Deny attempts just doesn't really make sense when they've put it on a fair number of models. I mean Templars and Sisters getting it as an army trait doesn't really pan out to me as a thing. But I'm just hypothesizing at this point.

**SkaerKrow**

azreal13 wrote:
Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
tyrannosaurus wrote:
I'm excited, love the idea of unbound armies, looking forward to 7th.

Agreed! 40k is about creativity, play and community, its not some super competitive teeth gritting chess game...never has been never will be. Shame faceless negativity rules the roost online, no offence to people taking a dislike to things everyone's entitled to there own opinions and tastes but it seems get way to out of hand around here at times.

Seriously, is there a holding pen where you lot get trained before being released to have the same conversation one after fething one?

People aren't after 40K becoming Chess, what people want is a fair game, where your choices of army, or those made in list building, don't render you liable to near certain defeat before a die is rolled, or susceptible to accusations of being TFG, for player input at table side to matter more than unit choice.

You are getting a fair game. Instead of toning everything down, they're ramping everything up so that you have more opportunities to take a powerful list. If you want purely symetrical sides, well, that's Chess, and you can play it in that pen with all of the other people who don't grasp the fact that 40k has been an asymetrical game (where you can easily lose in the "Purchase Army Phase") for twenty years or so.

**Sigvatr**

I feel Zweischneid is just around the corner

You are not getting a fair game. FAR from it. You still refer to the ally matrix which means that e.g. Tyranids can't get Riptides => autolose. Fair?

A good 40k ruleset would rely on perfect imbalance-ish where one army was good in one area but bad in another and vice-versa for the opponent.

Thinking that the game is more balanced because it removes balance is naive.

**Bull0**

No riptides = autolose? News to me. I get your general point, in a "take whatever you want" environment those with the biggest and angriest toys are going to do best. The "perfect imbalance" idea doesn't really work in an unbound world because you just don't use the weak stuff in your codex. "10 Leman Russes" etc

**Sigvatr**

Nothing works in an unbound world. Unbound is a joke and nothing more. Playing Unbound is not playing 40k, it's "Look, I can throw more money at GW!". Congratz to everyone winning that game.

**Brother SRM**

Sigvatr wrote:
Nothing works in an unbound world. Unbound is a joke and nothing more. Playing Unbound is not playing 40k, it's "Look, I can throw more money at GW!". Congratz to everyone winning that game.

"Grr! This thing that I only know part of the picture of is the worst thing ever!"
Just wait dude. Just wait.

**Bull0**

Sigvatr wrote:
Nothing works in an unbound world. Unbound is a joke and nothing more. Playing Unbound is not playing 40k, it's "Look, I can throw more money at GW!". Congratz to everyone winning that game.

40k existed before the FOC, and I'm sure there are ways to make it work, but what we know of it so far doesn't look promising.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother SRM wrote:

"Grr! This thing that I only know part of the picture of is the worst thing ever!"
Just wait dude. Just wait.

Oh, yeah, what he said.

**Sigvatr**

Bull0 wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Nothing works in an unbound world. Unbound is a joke and nothing more. Playing Unbound is not playing 40k, it's "Look, I can throw more money at GW!". Congratz to everyone winning that game.

40k existed before the FOC, and I'm sure there are ways to make it work, but what we know of it so far doesn't look promising.

Oh, it will most certainly work. WAAC players will love it.

**Bull0**

Yeah, I meant there are probably ways for the rules designers to make it work, not "I'm sure there are ways to make "disregard the FOC" work as a competitive player", because, obviously

**pax_imperialis**

The unbound thing seems pretty silly to me, mind you i say that as someone who struggles ahead with csm, enduring loss after loss to riptides and knights. I suppose the flipside is i will literally be able to field and army of only heldrakes. Actually tell a lie, i will HAVE to field an army of heldrakes.

dammit when do i get my chaos knight.

**Sigvatr**

The problem with Unbound is that it's a trap. At first, it seems like it would open up a lot more army build possibilities.

That's not true, however. In the contrary, it's far more limiting as one would assume due to 40k's extremely poor balance. Good armies are good because of having a few good picks that really pull the army up. Since Unbound solely revolves around spamming those, the actual number of viable builds is extremely limited to what basically is "Spam your OP crap!".

**tyrannosaurus**

azreal13 wrote:
Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
tyrannosaurus wrote:
I'm excited, love the idea of unbound armies, looking forward to 7th.

Agreed! 40k is about creativity, play and community, its not some super competitive teeth gritting chess game...never has been never will be. Shame faceless negativity rules the roost online, no offence to people taking a dislike to things everyone's entitled to there own opinions and tastes but it seems get way to out of hand around here at times.

Seriously, is there a holding pen where you lot get trained before being released to have the same conversation one after fething one?

People aren't after 40K becoming Chess, what people want is a fair game, where your choices of army, or those made in list building, don't render you liable to near certain defeat before a die is rolled, or susceptible to accusations of being TFG, for player input at table side to matter more than unit choice.

This isn't some impossible dream, nearly every one of the larger competitors offers this. You're correct in that it hasn't ever been 40K's strong point, but it is getting worse, and more concerning, rather than showing signs of correcting this, the process seems to be accelerating.

I'm not one of those pulling their hair out, condemning the new edition before we have any substantial knowledge of the changes, but I am holding on to a healthy dose of cynicism nonetheless. All you "everything is wonderful, everything is great, 40K is awesome" Lalas are getting on my tits almost as much as the rage-quitters. 40K can still be fun in the right circumstances, but to try and make out that there aren't some serious cracks being papered over by some very thin wallpaper, and that for the first time sales seem to be reflecting this - so it isn't the "vocal minority on the Internet" so much anymore, and that the game as it stands couldn't be vastly improved as an experience for both "casual" and "competitive" alike seems so disconnected from reality as to lead me to question anyone posting in this manner's sanity.

Agree that it could do with improvements, and for me unbound is an improvement. It lets me put more of the models I want to use on the table to make my army look like I want it to, which is much more important to me than balance. If I want balance I play something else. Maybe you should too?

Problems are caused by the players who put their winning above everything else, including their opponent's enjoyment. That won't be made any worse by unbound.

I'll ignore the vitriol and personal slights, you're clearly angry

**Bull0**

Upset about being told you're insane, but quite happy to put forward this point

"Problems are caused by the players who put their winning above everything else, including their opponent's enjoyment. That won't be made any worse by unbound."

Interesting.

**TBD**

tyrannosaurus wrote:

Problems are caused by the players who put their winning above everything else, including their opponent's enjoyment. That won't be made any worse by unbound.

I do think it will be made worse by unbound. The way it appears to be right now those players you mention will have more room within the rules to abuse stuff than they had before, so list-makers that were abusive before will only get more abusive after 7th edition while "normal" lists will stay more or less the same. The gap could potentially be much larger.

What it will likely come down to though is people having to go through more of an effort to decide beforehand what everybody brings to the table in casual games. If you create an unbound list that is thematic and clearly not intended to be abusive everything should indeed be fine. Players wanting to use abusive unbound lists will either end up playing eachother or they end up at home staring at their models because nobody wants to play against them.

**The Division Of Joy**

tyrannosaurus wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
tyrannosaurus wrote:
I'm excited, love the idea of unbound armies, looking forward to 7th.

Agreed! 40k is about creativity, play and community, its not some super competitive teeth gritting chess game...never has been never will be. Shame faceless negativity rules the roost online, no offence to people taking a dislike to things everyone's entitled to there own opinions and tastes but it seems get way to out of hand around here at times.

Seriously, is there a holding pen where you lot get trained before being released to have the same conversation one after fething one?

People aren't after 40K becoming Chess, what people want is a fair game, where your choices of army, or those made in list building, don't render you liable to near certain defeat before a die is rolled, or susceptible to accusations of being TFG, for player input at table side to matter more than unit choice.

This isn't some impossible dream, nearly every one of the larger competitors offers this. You're correct in that it hasn't ever been 40K's strong point, but it is getting worse, and more concerning, rather than showing signs of correcting this, the process seems to be accelerating.

I'm not one of those pulling their hair out, condemning the new edition before we have any substantial knowledge of the changes, but I am holding on to a healthy dose of cynicism nonetheless. All you "everything is wonderful, everything is great, 40K is awesome" Lalas are getting on my tits almost as much as the rage-quitters. 40K can still be fun in the right circumstances, but to try and make out that there aren't some serious cracks being papered over by some very thin wallpaper, and that for the first time sales seem to be reflecting this - so it isn't the "vocal minority on the Internet" so much anymore, and that the game as it stands couldn't be vastly improved as an experience for both "casual" and "competitive" alike seems so disconnected from reality as to lead me to question anyone posting in this manner's sanity.

Agree that it could do with improvements, and for me unbound is an improvement. It lets me put more of the models I want to use on the table to make my army look like I want it to, which is much more important to me than balance. If I want balance I play something else. Maybe you should too?

Problems are caused by the players who put their winning above everything else, including their opponent's enjoyment. That won't be made any worse by unbound.

I'll ignore the vitriol and personal slights, you're clearly angry

Well said. However, you'll get no agreement on here, people will drown you in negativity and if you respond a mod will PM you

**tyrannosaurus**

Bull0 wrote:
Upset about being told you're insane, but quite happy to put forward this point

"Problems are caused by the players who put their winning above everything else, including their opponent's enjoyment. That won't be made any worse by unbound."

Interesting.

Obviously I meant that there is a lot of room for abusive lists already. You can already take a 6 Heldrake, Typhus, Plague Zombie double FoC list at 2k points, or a 5 Riptide list. How will unbound make this worse? These people will still be around, but unbound gives greater opportunity for us fluffy list players to have more fun. Maybe I want to run a full Repentia Sisters army, or a Khorne list all in Landraiders. Now I can.

**TBD**

The Division Of Joy wrote:

Well said. However, you'll get no agreement on here, people will drown you in negativity and if you respond a mod will PM you

Actually what he said wasn't that well said at all and you could even say it is pretty ignorant.

What he said basically comes down to "if you don't agree with my personal opinion about what the rules of the game should be intended to be go play another game", which is funny because people disageeing with him could counter by saying the exact same thing and nobody would be "right" or "wrong".

Whether or not you want to call it balance or give it another name, to expect a game starting out with both sides being at an equal level of advantage, is a rather reasonable expectation.

**Zweischneid**

TBD wrote:

Whether or not you want to call it balance or give it another name, to expect a game starting out with both sides being at an equal level of advantage, is a rather reasonable expectation.

Yes. And millions, if not billions of games already do just that.

There is also nothing reprehensible about a game trying something different once in a while.

**Sigvatr**

It's an argument often brought up and it's an argument that cannot stand on its own feet.

First of all, if you wanted to build a fluffy list to play with friends in 6th - what stopped you from doing so? Communicate with your opponents before the game and ask if it's possible. Do you really need to buy a 100$ rulebook to tell you that this is possible?

Secondly: abuse has happened and will happen and with 7th, it's official. Clearly, Unbound is a joke mode, similar to what many MOBA games have, where everyone knows they're not playing a serious match.

Thirdly: Yes, you can bring a 5 Riptide list. With Unbound, you can bring 10. Or a game with one side bringing 300+ models. Fun, 1 hour per turn. It's a typical argumebt brought up in many other contexts as well - "we already got so many of the bad, why not bring in more of the bad, it doesn't matter!". It's a very naive attitude that easily falls apart when having a closer look.

**Goliath**

Sigvatr wrote:
Oh, it will most certainly work. WAAC players will love it.

Or those of us who want to make a funny, if stupid, army. Big Mek Conclave with 6 SAGs and loads of kans and dredds? Mad Max style army with everything mounted on either bikes or buggies? an army entirely composed of dreadnaughts?
Not everyone likes the idea of unbound because it allows us to make a really broken list, some of use just like the ability to make thematic, if vaguely silly, lists that don't obey the traditional FOC.

I know you're concerned about the competetive scene being broken by unbound, but if it turns out to be too broken they'll probably just ban unbound lists in competitions.

**TedNugent**

Sigvatr wrote:
The problem with Unbound is that it's a trap. At first, it seems like it would open up a lot more army build possibilities.

That's not true, however. In the contrary, it's far more limiting as one would assume due to 40k's extremely poor balance. Good armies are good because of having a few good picks that really pull the army up. Since Unbound solely revolves around spamming those, the actual number of viable builds is extremely limited to what basically is "Spam your OP crap!".

Exactly. No one is talking about spamming Tactical Marines or spamming Nephilim Jetfighters. Everyone's talking about spamming Riptides and Heldrakes.

The other issue is, what are you going to do with your flamers or your plasma when somebody shows up with 6 Land Raiders and nothing else? It just devolves into stupid rock-paper-scissors garbage.

**Zweischneid**

Sigvatr wrote:

First of all, if you wanted to build a fluffy list to play with friends in 6th - what stopped you from doing so? Communicate with your opponents before the game and ask if it's possible. Do you really need to buy a 100$ rulebook to tell you that this is possible?

The widespread fallacy in the community that the rules are to be adhered to at all times.

Sigvatr wrote:

Secondly: abuse has happened and will happen and with 7th.

Indeed, nothing changes in that regard.

Sigvatr wrote:

Thirdly: Yes, you can bring a 5 Riptide list. With Unbound, you can bring 10. Or a game with one side bringing 300+ models. Fun, 1 hour per turn. It's a typical argumebt brought up in many other contexts as well - "we already got so many of the bad, why not bring in more of the bad, it doesn't matter!". It's a very naive attitude that easily falls apart when having a closer look.

Both are reprehensible, if no pre-communication happens.

The problem isn't jerks bringing 10 Riptides in "unbound", the problem is jerks who think they are allowed to bring 2 or 3 or 5 Riptides now, without pre-communication, as if they had a "right" to play that and because they claim it is somehow "legal", as if rules would somehow take precedence over the mutual enjoyment or override the need to find a shared consensus for every game between two people.

People have abused the FOC thus far as a sort of "entitlement" that everything that does not violate the FOC is fair game. Removing FOC removes this false entitlement, which should've never have existed in the first place.

**Sigvatr**

Goliath wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Oh, it will most certainly work. WAAC players will love it.
Or those of us who want to make a funny, if stupid, army. Big Mek Conclave with 6 SAGs and loads of kans and dredds? Mad Max style army with everything mounted on either bikes or buggies? an army entirely composed of dreadnaughts?
Not everyone likes the idea of unbound because it allows us to make a really broken list, some of use just like the ability to make thematic, if vaguely silly, lists that don't obey the traditional FOC.

I know you're concerned about the competetive scene being broken by unbound, but if it turns out to be too broken they'll probably just ban unbound lists in competitions.

The competitive scene is of no concern. First of all, it's a joke right now anyway in 6th with its horrible balance, but even then, comp would ban Outbound right in the spot. I worry about all players playing PUGs with players playing Unbound lists claiming "DUUUH LOOK AT ZE RULEZ ITS LEGAL TO BRING 11 RIPTIDES! LOL noob haha you get bonusses for playing Bound vs. Unbound LOLOL L2P!". Those people ruin the game.

Exactly the same thing happened with allies. Everyone in favor of them said: "Hey, cool, finally I can play CSM and Daemons in one army!" and what happened? Taudar. Every. fething. Where.

Unbound is blatantly catering to bad sportsmen in order to increase sales. Period.

**insaniak**

Zweischneid wrote:
Yes. And millions, if not billions of games already do just that.

Yes they do... or at least they try to... Because that's the right way to make a fair game.

**Zweischneid**

insaniak wrote:
Zweischneid wrote:
Yes. And millions, if not billions of games already do just that.

Yes they do... or at least they try to... Because that's the right way to make a fair game.

How do you know it is the "right way", if nobody ever tried differently?

**Squidbot**

Deja vu.

**tyrannosaurus**

TBD wrote:
The Division Of Joy wrote:

Well said. However, you'll get no agreement on here, people will drown you in negativity and if you respond a mod will PM you

Actually what he said wasn't that well said at all and you could even say it is pretty ignorant.

What he said basically comes down to "if you don't agree with my personal opinion about what the rules of the game should be intended to be go play another game", which is funny because people disageeing with him could counter by saying the exact same thing and nobody would be "right" or "wrong".

Whether or not you want to call it balance or give it another name, to expect a game starting out with both sides being at an equal level of advantage, is a rather reasonable expectation.

Not my opinion about the rules of the game, it's the opinion of the games developers, and with unbound, opinion doesn't matter as it's the rules. Yes you can choose to ignore the rules, which is an interesting approach to TT wargaming. I wonder if those that have already stated they will refuse to play against an unbound list ignore the rules in all of the games they play, or just 40k?

What's more elitist, me suggesting that those who are unhappy play a different game, or those who are unhappy forcing others to play the game the way they want it to be played by refusing to accept rules changes or pretending the stuff they don't like doesn't exist?

Sorry 40k isn't going in the direction you want, but if you didn't know this was the way it was heading then you've been living in a cave. Also, 40k has never been about balance from its inception. If this bothers you so much then there's lots of other options where balance is considered important [I've started playing X-Wing and have an Infinity starter set on the way, not because I particularly care about balance, but I fancy trying some other stuff].